Krazke speaks of his discovery, that recopying can be a superior method to revise, as more meta-cognitive and so more valuable learning tool than simply cutting and pasting on computers.
Backed up by Twain's explicit quote, his point seemed credible.
It does at first seem like a tedious exercise that may or may not help the revsing process. But though out the essay Kratze points out many who have experienced the smae "Aha." Donald Murray for one, gave his testimony that "rewriting a a draft is necessary to discover what one has to say on a subject."
Kratze makes the point that the ongoing struggle for students to write may be connected to the inability to think.and so scores from sat to Gre continue to drop. He states that the problem must be rooted in how we read and write. Highlighting lines in a text is not the same as writing notes in a margin. Writing in the margin would be either separating the important , or translating into the venacular, or summarizing - all strategies of meta-cognitive - thinking about learning.
If students are writing as robots, as Kratze suggests then there may be too much control- too much Bartholomae and not enough Elbow or Murray theories of writing.The question is raised, how to get them to join the conversation. But Kratze goes on to insist that students would take a better look at what they are writing and be forced to think about it if they recopy their papers.
My opinion with middle school students and possibly some high school students is , yes, they need to be taught or tricked into thinking but I have doubts that recopying is the answer. For one thing, students are very apt at simply rewriting their papers, as mine have done since we do not have immediate access to computers, without thinking. They frequently ignore their revision marks and comments and rewrite the same mistakes as they are writing as robots.
I believe the thinking must come in the first thoughts , the first lines or the first paragraph. If they are not involved in the conversation in the first draft, it seems unlikely that they would wake up in the second or third draft. I agree with the statement that students often don't see themselves as real writers and so they feel this is pointless because they don't know what they are saying in the first place.
Here, I can hear Andrea Lunsford saying that collaboration is the answer. With two people ( or more?) there will be guaranteed discourse which would lead to thinking and writing and more talking and thinking while writing. Two sets of eyes and ears would hear and see what is missing or what is unnecessary or a better word choice for revision.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think working with peers on "thought drafts" can be more useful than recopying a paragraph. If we wait until after a finished draft, it is mostly too late for peer involvement or for the student to produce much more than a cursory rewrite. As you said, Nancy, "If they are not involved in the conversation in the first draft, it seems unlikely that they would wake up in the second or third draft." If students are not happy with their first draft, they have frequently begun disengaging from the paper rather than re-engaging. They just want to be done with it. If they are happy with the draft, they usually do not see the need to change a thing.
ReplyDeleteIn my ESL classes, community is everything, and I spend most of the first part of the semester building it in my class. We write every day about topics in the world news, and the students usually choose to read aloud. After we have discussed the topic, they have another assignment in the evening to write a response to the afternoon readings and discussion. Frequently we pass the papers in a circle of four or five students, having write-arounds, where each of the students writes a response to what has been written by the others in the group. In any week, on any given topic, the students have heard and read many different viewpoints and styles and have a point of launch. They have an opinion on the subject, and they know where others stand. They have also gathered bits of supporting information. Vocabulary and grammar become more important to them as they want their views and values to be understood, and peer assistance begins to take on a new role. The students are engaged, and I have interesting papers to read.
I know that in L1 classes, some ESL students are judged more harshly because of imperfect grammar and language skills. I also know that in L1 classes, students are sometimes reluctant to work with L2 learners in peer groups because they feel overwhelmed by the challenge and do not think the L2 student can offer them any help in return. By having them begin working together early in the process, they can help each other develop ideas and arguments, which is far more useful than trying to identify stray commas and allows everyone to exhibit some strengths.
Nancy,
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me the most about your response to Kratze’s work was your comment about students writing as robots. As you stated, if students are writing like robots, there may be too much control and, ultimately, too much Bartholomae and not enough Elbow or Murray. Likewise, as you have stated, the question is raised on how to get them to join the conversation. This notion of students joining the conversation, in turn, directly parallels Bruffee’s own theories of collaborative learning. What I found intriguing about your statement is how you reveal that the employment of one writing style results in the predominance of one scholar’s theories over another. In doing so, hence, there becomes a balancing act. Indeed, such a notion is nothing shy of the truth. We cannot incorporate everyone’s theories into our teaching of writing. Likewise, no one scholar has the whole answer to how we should properly teach. Hence, we must draw upon some theories while abandoning others in order to develop our own balanced method which works best for us and our classroom.
Thomas